DOCSLIB.ORG

New Hampshire Statewide Target Fish Community Assessment Ammonoosuc River - Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Hampshire Statewide Target Fish Community Assessment Ammonoosuc River - Final Report NEW HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE TARGET FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AMMONOOSUC RIVER - FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Prepared by: July 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Designated River Delineation ................................................................................................... 1 Delineation Methods ............................................................................................................................ 1 Delineation Results ............................................................................................................................... 7 III. Reference River Data Selection .............................................................................................. 14 Reference River Selection Methods .................................................................................................... 14 Reference River Selection Results ....................................................................................................... 18 IV. TFC Model Development ........................................................................................................... 35 TFC Model Development Methods ...................................................................................................... 35 TFC Model Results ............................................................................................................................... 36 V. References Cited .......................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 45 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final Ammonoosuc River Report i July, 2018 List of Tables Table - 1: Fish species removed from the NMDS delineation analysis. ....................................................... 3 Table - 2: GIS layers used in the delineation analysis. ................................................................................. 4 Table - 3: Gradient and watershed size class categories from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................... 4 Table - 4: Soil types used in the delineation analysis. .................................................................................. 5 Table - 5: Delineation parameter descriptions and break justifications. ..................................................... 7 Table - 6: Information pertaining to reaches delineated by the TFC breaks. .............................................. 8 Table - 7: Elevation classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table - 8: Chemical classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table - 9: Temperature classes and descriptions from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System layer. ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Table - 10: Characteristics used to select reference rivers for the upper segment. .................................. 18 Table - 11: Species counts for reference rivers for the upper segment. .................................................... 23 Table - 12: Characteristics used to select reference rivers for the middle segment. ................................. 24 Table - 13: Species counts for reference rivers for the middle segment. ................................................... 28 Table - 14: Characteristics used to select reference rivers for the lower segment. ................................... 29 Table - 15: Species counts for reference rivers for the lower segment. ..................................................... 34 Table - 16: Comprehensive list of native species used for the Designated River watershed, as determined from the greater basin area. ....................................................................................................................... 36 Table - 17: Count of fish from reference river data and expected percentage (TFC Model) of species for the upper segment. ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Table - 18: Count of fish from reference river data and expected percentage (TFC Model) of species for the middle segment. ................................................................................................................................... 40 Table - 19: Count of fish from reference river data and expected percentage (TFC Model) of species for the lower segment. ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Table – A1: List of common and scientific names for fish species in the fish community sample dataset (includes samples from NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, and ME). ......................................................................... 46 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final Ammonoosuc River Report ii July, 2018 List of Figures Figure - 1: NMDS ordination plot highlighting the locations of fish sampling sites in ordination space, based on the fish community. ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure - 2: Gradient (left panel) and stream order (right panel), along with fish sampling locations. ...... 10 Figure - 3: Soils (left panel), watershed size class (right panel), and NH predicted fish community types (right panel)................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure - 4: Bedrock composition and water chemical classification. .......................................................... 12 Figure - 5: Delineated segments derived from the TFC break points. ....................................................... 13 Figure - 6: Theoretical example of evaluating the number of samples (i.e. whether data are sufficient for further analysis) using MultSE. ................................................................................................................... 17 Figure - 7: Initial selection of reference river fish community samples for the upper segment. ............... 20 Figure - 8: MultSE (beginning at n=2) of fish community data for reference rivers initially selected for the upper segment. ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure - 9: MultSE for the final reference river selection for the upper segment. ..................................... 22 Figure - 10: Initial selection of reference river fish community samples for the middle segment............. 25 Figure - 11: MultSE (beginning at n=2) of fish community data for reference rivers initially selected for the middle segment. ................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure - 12: MultSE for the final reference river selection for the middle segment................................... 27 Figure - 13: Initial selection of reference river fish community samples for the lower segment. ............. 30 Figure - 14: MultSE (beginning at n=2) of fish community data for reference rivers initially selected for the lower segment. ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure – 15a: MultSE for the final reference river selection for the lower segment. ................................. 32 Figure – 15b: MultSE for the reference river selection for the lower segment, but with the Ausable River samples removed. ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure - 16: Graphical representation of the TFC Model for the upper segment. ...................................... 37 Figure - 17: Graphical representation of the TFC Model for the middle segment. .................................... 39 Figure - 18: Graphical representation of the TFC Model for the lower segment. ...................................... 41 NH Target Fish Community Assessment Gomez and Sullivan Engineers Final Ammonoosuc River Report iii July, 2018 I. Introduction Target Fish Community models have been developed for a number of instream flow related projects in the Northeast. The TFC development process, as defined by Bain and Meixler (2005), uses fish community data from the best available reference rivers that would characterize a feasible and currently relevant fish community. As such, the TFC model does not represent a historically “natural”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nayigation of the Connecticut River
    1903.] The Navigation of the Connecticut River. 385 THE NAYIGATION OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER. BY W. DELOSS LOVE. THE discovery of the Connecticut river has been generally attributed hy histoi'ians to Adriaen Block. If Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524 or Estovan Gomez in 1525 sailed by its mouth, we have no record of the fact ; and it is very doubtful whether a river, whose semicircle of sand bars must have proclaimed it such, would have attracted much attention from any navigator seeking a northwest passage. In 1614, Block, having completed his yacht the Onrust [Restless], set sail from Manhattan to explore the bays and rivers to the. eastward. His vessel was well adapted to his purpose, being of sixteen tons burden, forty-four and a half feet long and eleven and a half feefc wide. He was able thus to obtain a more exact knowledge of the coast, as may be seen by the "Figurative Map," which is sup- posed to exhibit the results of his explorations.^ At the mouth of the Connecticut river he found the water quite shallow, but the draught of his yacht enabled him to cross the bar Avithout danger and the white man was soon for the first time folloAving northward the course of New Eng- land's longest river. There were few inhabitants to be seen near the mouth, but at a point which is thought to have been just above the bend near Middletown, he came upon the lodges of. the Sequins, located on both banks of thé river. Still farther up he saw an Indian village "resembling a fort for protection against the attacks of their enemies." This was in latitude 41° 48', and was, > De Laet's " Description of the New Netherlands," x: Y:,met.
    [Show full text]
  • Official List of Public Waters
    Official List of Public Waters New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Water Division Dam Bureau 29 Hazen Drive PO Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 (603) 271-3406 https://www.des.nh.gov NH Official List of Public Waters Revision Date October 9, 2020 Robert R. Scott, Commissioner Thomas E. O’Donovan, Division Director OFFICIAL LIST OF PUBLIC WATERS Published Pursuant to RSA 271:20 II (effective June 26, 1990) IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not use this list for determining water bodies that are subject to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). The CSPA list is available on the NHDES website. Public waters in New Hampshire are prescribed by common law as great ponds (natural waterbodies of 10 acres or more in size), public rivers and streams, and tidal waters. These common law public waters are held by the State in trust for the people of New Hampshire. The State holds the land underlying great ponds and tidal waters (including tidal rivers) in trust for the people of New Hampshire. Generally, but with some exceptions, private property owners hold title to the land underlying freshwater rivers and streams, and the State has an easement over this land for public purposes. Several New Hampshire statutes further define public waters as including artificial impoundments 10 acres or more in size, solely for the purpose of applying specific statutes. Most artificial impoundments were created by the construction of a dam, but some were created by actions such as dredging or as a result of urbanization (usually due to the effect of road crossings obstructing flow and increased runoff from the surrounding area).
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire River Protection and Energy Development Project Final
    ..... ~ • ••. "'-" .... - , ... =-· : ·: .• .,,./.. ,.• •.... · .. ~=·: ·~ ·:·r:. · · :_ J · :- .. · .... - • N:·E·. ·w··. .· H: ·AM·.-·. "p• . ·s;. ~:H·1· ··RE.;·.· . ·,;<::)::_) •, ·~•.'.'."'~._;...... · ..., ' ...· . , ·....... ' · .. , -. ' .., .- .. ·.~ ···•: ':.,.." ·~,.· 1:·:,//:,:: ,::, ·: :;,:. .:. /~-':. ·,_. •-': }·; >: .. :. ' ::,· ;(:·:· '5: ,:: ·>"·.:'. :- .·.. :.. ·.·.···.•. '.1.. ·.•·.·. ·.··.:.:._.._ ·..:· _, .... · -RIVER~-PR.OT-E,CT.10-N--AND . ·,,:·_.. ·•.,·• -~-.-.. :. ·. .. :: :·: .. _.. .· ·<··~-,: :-:··•:;·: ::··· ._ _;· , . ·ENER(3Y~EVELOP~.ENT.PROJ~~T. 1 .. .. .. .. i 1·· . ·. _:_. ~- FINAL REPORT··. .. : .. \j . :.> ·;' .'·' ··.·.· ·/··,. /-. '.'_\:: ..:· ..:"i•;. ·.. :-·: :···0:. ·;, - ·:··•,. ·/\·· :" ::;:·.-:'. J .. ;, . · · .. · · . ·: . Prepared by ~ . · . .-~- '·· )/i<·.(:'. '.·}, •.. --··.<. :{ .--. :o_:··.:"' .\.• .-:;: ,· :;:· ·_.:; ·< ·.<. (i'·. ;.: \ i:) ·::' .::··::i.:•.>\ I ··· ·. ··: · ..:_ · · New England ·Rtvers Center · ·. ··· r "., .f.·. ~ ..... .. ' . ~ "' .. ,:·1· ,; : ._.i ..... ... ; . .. ~- .. ·· .. -,• ~- • . .. r·· . , . : . L L 'I L t. ': ... r ........ ·.· . ---- - ,, ·· ·.·NE New England Rivers Center · !RC 3Jo,Shet ·Boston.Massachusetts 02108 - 117. 742-4134 NEW HAMPSHIRE RIVER PRO'l'ECTION J\ND ENERGY !)EVELOPMENT PBOJECT . -· . .. .. .. .. ., ,· . ' ··- .. ... : . •• ••• \ ·* ... ' ,· FINAL. REPORT February 22, 1983 New·England.Rivers Center Staff: 'l'bomas B. Arnold Drew o·. Parkin f . ..... - - . • I -1- . TABLE OF CONTENTS. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS . ~ . • • . .. • .ii EXECUTIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Canals Projected but Never Finished
    Connecticut River Canals Projected But Never Finished Besides the six canals that were built on the Connecticut River, there were, during the period of navigation, a number of other canals strongly discussed and some chartered at different places but not built until the bubble of river navigation burst. In 1825, the War Department had sent an engineer to Barnet who had surveyed three different routes from there to Canada. At large expense, and resulting from mass meetings of citizens held in different localities, surveys were made for a system of canals from Wells River over the Green Mountains to Montpelier, thence down the Winooski to Lake Champlain; from the Merrimac, near Concord, up the Pemigewassett to Wentworth, N. H., and then across to the Connecticut in the town of Haverhill, N. H.; from Concord to Claremont, via the Contocook and Sugar Rivers; from the mouth of Millers River, near Greenfield, to Boston; up the Deerfield Valley to the present Hoosac Tunnel, where the mountain was to be cut through and Troy, reached via the Hoosac River, there to connect with the arteries of canals then being constructed, and thus reaching all parts of the country. A canal was already being constructed northward from New Haven, Conn., to Northampton, Mass. A Canal At Brattleboro In the office of the Secretary of State of New Hampshire is to be seen an act of incorporation for a dam and canal near Brattleboro, evidently intended to avoid the rapid water just below the bridge, which, it is needless to say, was never constructed. The act chartered "The Connecticut River Canal Company," the incorporators being Richard Kimball, Elias Lyman, Amos A.
    [Show full text]
  • Westfield River, Massachusetts Wild and Scenic River Evaluation J and Environmental Assessment
    WESTFIELD RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER EVALUATION J AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Findings regarding the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' application for designation of the Westfield River into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and SCf''1ic Rivers Act as submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by: National Park Service North Atlantic Region Boston, Massachusetts July 1993 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........... ...... ........ .......... ..... ......... Introduction . 1 I Purpose ..... .................. .................... .... ........ ... 1 ' ) Structure of this Report . 2 The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and Designation Process . 3 J Westfield River Segments Proposed for Designation ........... .. .. ........ 4 The Westfield River Greenway Plan . .. ....... .. ..... .......... ............ 6 Development of the Greenway Plan . 6 Contents of the Greenway Plan . 8 State Designation and Management Requirements . 10 State Scenic River Designation . 10 State and Local River Management Responsibility . 11 Evaluation of Eligibility and Classification . 12 ', Introduction ................ ..... .. .. ....... : . 12 I I Eligibility Findings . 14 West Branch ................................ ................ 14 Middle Branch and Glendale Brook . 16 East Branch . 17 Classification Findings . 19 I West Branch ............. ...... .... ........................ 19 . I Middle Branch and Glendale Brook . 20 East Branch . 20 t Conclusion ................ .............. .... .. ...............
    [Show full text]
  • See the Wildlife Action Plan Habitat Profile
    Appendix B: Habitats Floodplain Habitats Photo by Ben Kimball Acres in NH: 23,201 Percent of NH Area: >1 Acres Protected: 7656 Percent Protected: 33 Habitat Distribution Map Habitat Description Floodplains occur in river valleys adjacent to river channels and are prone to periodic flooding. Floodplains are often comprised of forests, oxbows, meadows, and thickets. The habitats, vegetation, and hydrologic regime of floodplains are strongly influenced by watershed size, gradient, and channel morphometry. Most open or partially wooded floodplain communities occur on low floodplains. Sloughs, oxbows, vernal pools, and other depressions in the floodplain tend to be inundated for longer periods than low floodplains (Sperduto 2011). Floodplain soils range from well‐drained coarse sand on levees to poorly drained silts and mucks in depressions, and tend to be moderately to strongly minerotrophic (Sperduto 2011). Montane/near‐boreal floodplains are found primarily along rivers in the White Mountains or northern New Hampshire, and have relatively high gradients and flashy flood regimes compared to other floodplain systems. Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) are dominant trees, and riparian wetlands such as oxbows and sloughs are uncommon in these high‐ gradient floodplains. Major river silver maple floodplains occur primarily along the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers, and occasionally on lower reaches of major tributaries. These floodplains are often interspersed with oxbow marshes and shrub communities. The forested areas are characterized by a canopy of silver maple (Acer saccharinum) over a lush herbaceous layer, with a sparse shrub layer. Temperate minor river floodplains are found along large streams and small rivers in central and New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Appendix B-101 Appendix B: Habitats southern New Hampshire.
    [Show full text]
  • NFCT-Waterway Work Trip-2015 Upper Ammonoosuc River, NH Access Ramp July 9Th-11Th
    NFCT-Waterway Work Trip-2015 Upper Ammonoosuc River, NH Access Ramp July 9th-11th Introduction: The Upper Ammonoosuc River is a tributary of the Connecticut River and flows east to west across New Hampshire. NFCT through paddlers typically paddle upstream passing through the towns of Groveton and Stark before taking out in West Milan and portaging up RT 110A to the Androscoggin River. Day-trippers, or weekend paddlers typically take the trip in reverse, putting in at West Milan and taking out in Stark or Groveton. The NFCT has been developing relationships along the Ammonoosuc for years, and as a result, we have a number of campsites and project locations along its banks. This year, we will be installing bin privy systems at two campsite locations. If extra time allows we will work on prepping a river access put in/takeout in the town of Stark. Driving Directions and Meeting Location: From Groveton: Turn onto RT 110/ Berlin Groveton Hwy. Go approximately 12.4 miles. You will venture through the town of Stark and towards West Milan. Turn left onto Hart Rd. It’s a dirt road. Go approximately .4 miles. Just before the train tracks, on the left, pull in and park next to the NFCT truck (white F150). From West Milan: Gord’s Corner Store(Closest place to get supplies) is located at the Junction of RT110A and 110. From here, go west on RT 110 roughly 3.9 miles. Turn Right onto Hart Rd. Go approximately .4 miles. Just before the train tracks, on the left, pull in and park next to the NFCT truck (white F150).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Protection Plan
    Appendix A Ian Drew/USFWS View of upland forest on the refuge Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan Land Protection Plan I. Introduction We propose to expand the land acquisition boundary of the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge by 49,718 acres. We also recognize the importance of communicating our interest in acquiring and conserving that land to our partners in conservation, the local community, and the public. This land protection plan (LPP) explains our interests and intentions to owners of land near the refuge, to state agencies in New Hampshire and Maine, our conservation partners, local communities and the public. It also presents methods the Service and landowners interested in selling their land can use in accomplishing the wildlife habitat objectives of alternative B, our preferred alternative in the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the refuge. We developed this LPP at the same time and in conformance with that draft CCP and EIS. We believe our acquisition of additional land in fee title and conservation easements will contribute significantly to the conservation of federal trust resources in the Upper Androscoggin River watershed. The purposes of this LPP are � to inform landowners of our long-standing policy of acquiring land only from willing sellers. If an owner is not interested in selling, we will not purchase that land or an easement on it. � to inform the public clearly and concisely about resource protection needs, our priorities and policies for protecting land, the extent of our proposal, and potential conservation methods; � to describe the impacts of our proposal; and � to describe our intentions for managing the land we acquire.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4250 Department of Environmental Protection Cover photos: Upper photo shows the confluence of the Millers River and the Otter River in the low-gradient reach upstream from the Birch Hill Dam taken 12/6/00 by John A. Colman.The other, taken 12/18/00 is the Millers River in the steep-gradient reach one mile downstream from the USGS surface-water discharge station at South Royalston, Massachusetts (01164000). Photo by Britt Stock. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts By JOHN A. COLMAN Water-Resources Investigations Report 004250 Prepared in cooperation with the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Northborough, Massachusetts 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of trade or product names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Chief, Massachusetts-Rhode Island District U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 10 Bear-foot Road Denver, CO 802250286 Northborough, MA 01532 or visit our web site at http://ma.water.usgs.gov CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION: Coordination and Technical Assistance F-100-R-31
    CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION: Coordination and Technical Assistance F-100-R-31 Annual Progress Report October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Connecticut River Coordinator's Office Kenneth Sprankle, Project Leader 103 East Plumtree Road Sunderland, MA 01375-9138 Executive Summary Federal Aid Project #F-100-R-31 States: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont Project Title: Connecticut River Basin Anadromous Fish Restoration: Coordination and Technical Assistance Period Covered: October 1, 2013 - September 30, 2014 This annual report provides an opportunity to organize and document, to varying degrees, all work activities conducted by the Connecticut River Coordinator’s Office, which includes work outside of the Connecticut River basin and numerous activities not funded by this grant. Objectives: Coordinate the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program as a unified effort of State and Federal fishery agencies Provide technical assistance to the fishery agencies and other program cooperators Identify fishery program priorities, design and implement field projects to address issues, plans, and opportunities Administer several different federal grant programs to address fish habitat, fish passage, and research projects Accomplishments: Program Coordination: Coordinated two Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission (CRASC) and two CRASC Technical Committee meetings Organized a CRASC Shad Studies and River Herring subcommittee meeting Assisted in the completion
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report
    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Samplepalo Ooza 201 4
    Samplepalooza 2014 Compiled by Andrea Donlon & Ryan O’Donnell Connecticut River Watershed Council 0 Samplepalooza 2014 Acknowledgements: CRWC would like thank the following staff people and volunteers who collected samples and/or participated in planning meetings: CRWC staff Peggy Brownell Andrea Donlon David Deen Andrew Fisk Ron Rhodes VT Department of Environmental Conservation Marie Caduto Tim Clear Ben Copans Blaine Hastings Jim Ryan Dan Needham NH Department of Environmental Services Amanda Bridge Barona DiNapoli Tanya Dyson Margaret (Peg) Foss Andrea Hansen David Neils Vicki Quiram Ted Walsh Watershed organizations: Black River Action Team – Kelly Stettner Ottaqueechee River Group – Shawn Kelley Southeast Vermont Watershed Alliance – Phoebe Gooding, Peter Bergstrom, Laurie Callahan, Cris White White River Partnership – Emily Miller CRWC volunteers: Greg Berry Marcey Carver Glenn English Jim Holmes Liberty Foster Paul Friedman Paul Hogan Sean Lawson Mark Lembke Dianne Rochford 1 Samplepalooza 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements: ............................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]